Entry posted by Michael Komorn
608 views
CBD raids
Just as a landmark cannabidiol lawsuit headed to court this week, police in Tennessee carried out the largest known CBD raids in history: 23 businesses were closed and 21 individuals were cited for selling illegal marijuana products.
The raids, largely at tobacco shops selling candies and vape pens containing CBD, happened outside Nashville.
The raids didn’t sweep up any producers or processors, but they put the fledgling hemp industry in Tennessee on notice.
Like other states, Tennessee allows hemp growing and CBD production and has a small but thriving extraction industry.
But CBD possession in the Volunteer State is limited to those with certain medical conditions.
“You bet this is going to spark a few bills” in the state legislature, said Harold Jarboe, a Tennessee hemp grower who wasn’t affected by the raids.
“Tennessee has one of those ‘wink-wink, nudge-nudge’ CBD laws, so hopefully this will change that.”
Until CBD’s legal status is clarified, Jarboe said, the hemp industry needs to avoid looking like it’s trying to appeal to children and maybe avoid even using the letters C-B-D.
“We’re trying to make a health product, so we don’t do vapes, we don’t do candy,” Jarboe said. “We call it ‘hemp extract.’ It saves a lot of headaches.”
QuoteJanuary 24, 2018
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2018- 5Stephen M. Howe, District Attorney
Johnson County District Attorney's Office
100 N. Kansas
Olathe, KS 66061
Michael F. Kagay, District Attorney
Shawnee County District Attorney’s Office
200 SE 7th Street, Room 214
Topeka, KS 66603
Re: Crimes and Punishments—Crimes Involving Controlled Substances—Unlawful
Possession of Controlled Substances; Cannabidiol
Public Health—Controlled Substances—Uniform Controlled Substances Act—
Substances Included in Schedule I; CannabidiolSynopsis: Under Kansas law, it is unlawful to possess or sell products or substances
containing any amount of cannabidiol. It also is unlawful to possess or sell
products or substances containing any amount of tetrahydrocannabinol. Cited
herein: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5701; 21-5706; 65-4101; 65-4105, 65-4107, 65-
4109, 65-4111, 65-4113.* * *
Dear Mr. Howe and Mr. Kagay:
As District Attorneys for Johnson County and Shawnee County, respectively, you request our
opinion on whether cannabidiol (also known as CBD) oil that does not contain
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is legal to possess and/or sell in Kansas. While there is no standardized definition for “CBD oil,” we construe the term to mean oil containing cannabidiol.You also ask if there is a threshold for THC content that would make a product legal to possess
and/or sell in Kansas. For the reasons described below, we believe it is unlawful to possess or
sell products or substances containing any amount of cannabidiol. It also is unlawful to possess
or sell products or substances containing any amount of THC.
Background
We believe some general background will be helpful to the understanding of the issues.
The cannabis plant has approximately 109 cannabinoids.1 Cannabinoids2 are most abundant
in the flowering tops, resin, and leaves of the cannabis plant.3 Further, “cannabinoids are not
found in parts of the cannabis plant that are excluded from the [federal Controlled Substances
Act]
4 definition of marijuana, except for trace amounts (typically, only parts per million) that may
be found where small quantities of resin adhere to the surface of seeds and mature stalk.”5
Cannabinoids may come in different forms for administration. Marijuana leaves may be smoked
as a cigarette or in a pipe. Hashish consists of the dried and compressed cannabinoid-rich
resinous material of the cannabis plant. Hash oil is produced by solvent extraction of the
cannabinoids from the cannabis plant material.6Finally, the Kansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act7 (KUCSA) classifies controlled
substances into five Schedules.8 Schedule I drugs are substances that currently have no
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, have a high potential for abuse, and lack accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
1 Mariotti, K.C., et al., Seized Cannabis Seeds Cultivated in Greenhouse: A Chemical Study by Gas
Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry and Chemometric Analysis, 56 Science & Justice, 35-41 (January 2016). 2 “Cannabinoid: any of various chemical constituents (such as THC or cannabinol) of cannabis or marijuana.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cannabinoid; accessed on December 26, 2017.3 DEA Diversion Control Division, Clarification of the New Drug Code 7350 for Marijuana Extract,
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html; accessed December 10, 2017,
citing H. Mölleken and H. Hussman, Cannabinoid in Seed Extracts of Cannabis Sativa Cultivars, J. Int. Hemp Assoc.
4(2), pages 73-79 (1997).4 The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) definition of marihuana [sic] and the Kansas Uniform Controlled
Substances Act definition are similar. The CSA states, “The term ‘marihuana’ means all parts of the plant Cannabis
sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every
compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does
not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of
such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except
the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of
germination.” 21 U.S.C. §802(16).5 DEA Diversion Control Division, Clarification of the New Drug Code 7350 for Marijuana Extract,
https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/marijuana/m_extract_7350.html; accessed December 10, 2017,
citing H. Mölleken and H. Hussman, Cannabinoid in Seed Extracts of Cannabis Sativa Cultivars, J. Int. Hemp Assoc.
4(2), pages 73-79 (1997); See also, S. Ross et al., GC-MS Analysis of the Total Δ9-THC Content of Both Drug- and
Fiber-Type Cannabis Seeds, 24 J. Anal. Toxic. 715-717 (2000). 6 81 Federal Register 53688, 52699 (August 12, 2016) (Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule
Marijuana). 7 K.S.A. 65-4101 et seq. 8 See K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4105, 65-4107, 65-4109, 65-4111, and 65-4113; See also, 21 USC § 812.
9 Marijuana and its cannabinoid components are Schedule I drugs.10
Cannabidiol
Under the KUCSA, “marijuana” is defined in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4101(aa) as:
[A]ll parts of all varieties of the plant Cannabis whether growing or not, the seeds
thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant and every compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.
It does not include: (1) The mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the
stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of the mature stalks, except
the resin extracted therefrom, fiber, oil or cake or the sterilized seed of the plant
which is incapable of germination; or (2) any substance listed in schedules II
through V of the uniform controlled substances act.11The definition of marijuana under the Kansas Criminal Code in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5701(j) is
identical to the above definition under the KUCSA.
By reading the plain words used by the Legislature, under the identical definitions in K.S.A. 2017
Supp. 65-4101(aa) and K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5701(j), marijuana is anything derived from any
variety of the cannabis plant that is not excluded by definition, or excluded because it is a
substance listed in schedule II through V. Thus, the first step is to determine if cannabidiol fits
within the general definition of marijuana. If it does, then we will determine whether any of the
exclusions apply.
Cannabidiol is one of the identified cannabinoids unique to the cannabis plant.12 It is a chemical
compound of marijuana with a very specific chemical structure.13 Cannabidiol expression is
typically limited to the flowering tops of the cannabis plant,14 but it also may be found in the
resin and leaves of the cannabis plant.15 All of these are parts of the cannabis plant that are not
excluded from the Kansas definition of marijuana. Cannabidiol has been found in trace amounts
on seed and mature stalks where small quantities of resin adhere to the surface of seeds and
mature stalk.16 It appears to us that cannabidiol is not endogenous in the seeds and mature
stalk of the cannabis plant.9 See 21 USC § 812.
10 K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4105(d)(17).
11 Emphasis added. 12 Mariotti, K.C., supra, footnote 1. 13 Cannabidiol is defined by its chemical name in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4111(f)(3) as 2-[(1R,6R)-3-Methyl-6-(1-
methylethenyl)-2-cyclohexen-1-yl]-5-pentyl-1,3-benzenediol. 14 Mead A., The Legal Status of Cannabis (Marijuana) and Cannabidiol (CBD) Under U.S. Law, Epilepsy & Behavior
Journal, Volume 70, Part B, pages 288-291 (May, 2017).
15 DEA, supra, footnote 5.
Our review of literature on the subject leads us to conclude that cannabidiol is derived from the
parts of the cannabis plant that are not excluded from the definition of marijuana, or is derived
from resin found on any part of the plant, and therefore fits squarely within the general definition
of marijuana. Cannabidiol is marijuana as defined by K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4101(aa) and K.S.A.
2017 Supp. 21-5701(j).
We turn to the question of whether cannabidiol fits under either exclusion found in the definition
of marijuana. We note that certain parts of the cannabis plant are excluded from the definition
because cannabinoids are not found in the excluded parts (except in the resin in trace
amounts).17
The first exclusion is found in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4101(aa)(1) and K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-
5701(j)(1). The parts excluded from the definition of marijuana are, 1) the mature stalks, 2) fiber
from the stalks, 3) oil or cake made from the seeds of the cannabis plant, 4) any other compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin
extracted from the mature stalks), fiber, oil, or cake, made from the seeds of the cannabis plant
and 5) a sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
The general definition of marijuana and the first exclusion are mutually exclusive. Cannabidiol
is found in the non-excluded parts; therefore it falls squarely in the general definition of
marijuana. If cannabidiol is found on the seeds or stalks, it is as a result of contact with the resin
produced by the cannabis plant.18 Resin, extracted from any part of the plant, is specifically
included in the general definition of marijuana. Additionally, the Legislature included a clarifying
but arguably superfluous exception in the first exemption that resin extracted from the mature
stalks, an irrefutable part of the cannabis plant, falls within the definition of marijuana.Because your question specifically asks about CBD oil, we will address the excluded parts
enumerated in 3 and 4, specifically. Number 3 excludes from the definition oil made from the
seeds of the cannabis plant, and number 4 excludes a compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
mixture or preparation of the oil made from the seeds. These excluded parts seem to contradict
the general definition’s inclusion of cannabis seeds. The inclusion of cannabis seeds in the
general definition is logical because the seed is capable of germination and therefore capable
of producing a cannabis plant. Whereas, in processing the seed to extract the seed oil, the seed
is crushed and is no longer capable of germination. The product created when the seed is
crushed to extract oil could be called cannabis seed oil. Cannabis seed oil, however, does not
contain cannabidiol, except possibly in trace amounts, because cannabidiol is not found in the
cannabis seed. Cannabis seed oil is excluded from the definition of marijuana. However, if
cannabidiol is found on the seeds, it is from the resin adhering to the seeds, and resin from
excluded parts of the cannabis plant is still marijuana. Cannabis seed oil containing cannabidiol
would fall within the definition of marijuana and is unlawful to possess or sell.Finally, if cannabidiol is found in oil produced by extraction from the cannabis plant material, the
compound falls within the general definition of marijuana as defined by K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-
17 DEA, supra, footnote 5 and 15. 18 Id.
4101(aa) and K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5701(j), and it is unlawful to possess or sell such products or substances.The other exclusion is found in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4101(aa)(2) and K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-
5701(j)(2). This exclusion provides that any substance listed under Schedules II through V is
not included in the definition of marijuana.In 2017, the Legislature enacted a very narrow and specific instance where cannabidiol that
does not contain THC is a Schedule IV controlled substance rather than a Schedule I controlled
substance.19 K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4111(f)(3) prospectively makes cannabidiol a Schedule IV
drug “when comprising the sole active ingredient of a drug product approved by the United States
food and drug administration.” As of this writing, the Food and Drug Administration has not
approved such a drug product.20 Therefore, at this time, any substance containing cannabidiol
is not excluded from the definition of marijuana by K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4101(aa)(2) or K.S.A.
2017 Supp. 21-5701(j)(2).Because neither of the exceptions apply to cannabidiol, and cannabidiol is derived from the nonexempt
parts of the cannabis plant or from the resin found on any part of the plant, it falls squarely
within the definition of marijuana. Thus, cannabidiol is a Schedule 1 drug, and the possession
and sale of any amount is prohibited under Kansas law.21 Tetrahydrocannabinol THC is another cannabinoid unique to the cannabis plant.
The Kansas criminal laws regarding unlawful possession of controlled substances are found in
Chapter 21, Article 57 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5706(b)(7)
provides, “t shall be unlawful for any person to possess … any substance designated in K.S.A.
65-4105(h) [Schedule I], and amendments thereto.” K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4105(h)(1)
specifically lists THC as a substance included in Schedule I. We note that the criminal law does
not quantify an amount of the THC that must be possessed to make it unlawful. Indeed, case
law has held that possession of residue was sufficient to uphold a conviction for possession of
THC.23 Therefore, we conclude that it is unlawful to possess or sell products or substances
containing any amount of THC.19 K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 65-4111(f)(3), L. 2017, Ch. 57, § 6, 2017 Senate Bill 51. The prescribing and dispensing of
any such prescription medication is regulated by the Pharmacy Practice Act in Chapter 65, Article 16 of the Kansas
Statutes. 20 See FDA News Release https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm583295.htm;
accessed on December 10, 2017.
21 K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5706(b)(3).
22 Mariotti, K.C., supra, footnote 1 and 12.
23 See State v. Delarosa, 48 Kan. App. 2d 253, 257 (2012).
Stephen M. Howe and Michael F. Kagay
Sincerely,
/s/Derek Schmidt
Derek Schmidt
Kansas Attorney General
/s/Athena E. Andaya
Athena E. Andaya
Deputy Attorney General
DS:AA:sb
https://ag.ks.gov/docs/default-source/ag-opinions/2018/2018-005.pdf
Federal appeals court hears hemp industry lawsuit challenging DEA’s position on CBD
By Alicia Wallace, The Cannabist Staff
The fate of a federal rule viewed by hemp advocates as an existential threat to their emerging industry is now in the hands of a three-judge panel.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard oral arguments Thursday in the Hemp Industries Association’s petition challenging the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s January 2017 rule creating a Controlled Substances Code Number for “marihuana extracts.”
DEA officials claim the rule is administrative in nature and helps the agency better track research and meet international drug treaty requirements.
Attorneys for a hemp industry trade association and hemp businesses argue that the DEA conflated the terms “marijuana” and “cannabis,” ultimately creating a rule that can be interpreted as scheduling cannabis and cannabinoids as illegal substances. They blame the rule for a rash of seizures of cannabidiol products.
The DEA’s rule epitomizes “government overreach” and stands in opposition to intervening legislation, Robert Hoban, a Denver-based attorney representing the hemp industry, told the 9th Circuit Court judges.
“There was a seismic shift in United States cannabis policy in 2014 with the enactment of the Farm Bill, specifically Section 7606, involving industrial hemp,” said Hoban, a principal of Hoban Law Group. “And that seems to have created some confusion, perhaps, with the Drug Enforcement Administration.”
Hoban claimed that confusion extended to other federal, state and local enforcement agencies, which have since seized products such as hemp-derived, CBD-rich extracts.
“We’ve seen this drug code utilized week after week since it’s enactment to seize, to cause criminal enforcement against lawful operators who require no DEA registration,” Hoban said.
Sarah Carroll, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, countered that the language of the rule, follow-up guidance and court briefings expressly state that the code number applies only to the controlled parts of the cannabis plant that are within the Controlled Substances Act definition of marijuana.
“It does not apply at all to the parts that Congress exempted,” she said.
If other enforcement agencies acted out of step with DEA-issued rules and guidance, the “remedy would be to challenge that seizure,” she said.
The judges will review the arguments and briefs filed in the case, which include an amicus brief filed last month by 28 members of Congress. It could be months before an opinion is released, Hoban Law Group attorneys have said.
Timeline
Hemp Industries Association et al v. Drug Enforcement Administration
December 2016: New DEA rule on extracts, CBD causes commotion in cannabis industry
January 2017: Legal challenge filed against DEA’s new marijuana extract rule
April 2017: Hemp lawsuit in federal court alleges DEA overstepped on “extracts” rule
June 2017: DEA seeks dismissal of hemp industry lawsuit fighting drug code for “marihuana extracts”
July 2017: DEA statement on CBD, hemp products and the Farm Bill
July 2017: CW Hemp’s Joel Stanley says DEA position statement on CBD, hemp and Farm Bill “reckless and illegal
January 2018: Hemp industry lawsuit challenging DEA’s position on CBD picks up support of 28 U.S. legislators
1 Comment
Recommended Comments